The California Supreme Court has agreed to de-publish a decision that would have left gaming commissioners and other tribal officials open to lawsuits.
The court did not reverse the May 28 decision by the 4th District Court of Appeal that said gaming commissions could be sued for allegedly acting outside of their authority. But by de-publishing the ruling the court prevents the decision from being cited as precedent in other lawsuits.
Gaming commissioners at Pechanga Resort & Casino in Riverside County were sued for revoking the license of Bernard Cosentino, a former table games dealer.
An attorney for the commissioners listed several reasons why Cosentino was dismissed, including, “Plaintiff’s criminal record, prior adverse licensing determinations by other regulatory entities, financial irresponsibility and instability, failure to abide by the terms of his license, and refusal to provide information lawfully required by the commission will more than support the commission’s license revocation.”
The commission previously took the position that it couldn’t be sued due to sovereign immunity. For that reason it chose not to address Cosentino’s allegations.
The commission revoked Cosentino’s license in 2011 after it was discovered that he was providing information to the California Department of Justice about alleged criminal activity at the casino. This led to his dismissal.
The tribe later apologized to Cosentino and rescinded the revocation of his license but didn’t restore his license.
In the lower court Judge Richard M. Aronson, while conceding that the commission has the right to revoke an individual’s license, said the commission didn’t explain why it did so.
The Supreme Court was pressured by many tribal leaders who objected to the decision by Aronson because it opened up the possibility of tribal officials being sued when the tribe itself could not be sued. They asked that the decision be de-published. In one request thirteen tribal attorneys wrote, “With 109 federally recognized tribes in California, each with governmental agencies rendering decisions in areas as diverse as housing, education, health care, public safety, senior and youth programs, and enrollment — not to mention approximately 70 tribal gaming commissions — the opinion invites a tidal wave of litigation in California’s already overburdened courts.” The Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nations, which represents nine tribes, filed a similar brief with the court.
The court action returns the case to a lower court.
